report of the ices-fao working group on fishing technology ... · light in fisheries, and any...

ICES WGFTFB REPORT 2012 SCICOM STEERING GROUP ON ECOSYSTEM SURVEYS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

ICES CM 2012/SSGESST:07

REF. SCICOM, ACOM

Report of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour

(WGFTFB)

23-27 April 2012

Lorient, France

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer

H. C. Andersens Boulevard 44–46 DK-1553 Copenhagen V Denmark Telephone (+45) 33 38 67 00 Telefax (+45) 33 93 42 15 www.ices.dk [email protected]

Recommended format for purposes of citation:

ICES. 2012. Report of the ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), 23-27 April 2012, Lorient, France. ICES CM 2012/SSGESST:07. 206 pp.

For permission to reproduce material from this publication, please apply to the Gen-eral Secretary.

The document is a report of an Expert Group under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and does not necessarily represent the views of the Council.

© 2012 International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

ICES WGFTFB REPORT 2012 | i

Contents

Executive summary ................................................................................................................ 1

1 Directive .......................................................................................................................... 4

2 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4

3 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................ 5

4 Participants ..................................................................................................................... 6

5 Explanatory note on meeting and report structure .................................................. 6

6 Opening of the meeting ................................................................................................ 6

7 Report from ICES (Mike Pol) ...................................................................................... 6

7.1 Developments in the ICES-FAO relationship in regards to WGFTFB ................................................................................................................. 6

7.2 Report on developments from the 2011 Annual Science Conference ............ 7 7.2.1 The Marine Framework Strategy Directive (MFSD) ........................... 7 7.2.2 MSFD vs. WGFTFB – a very quick guide (Tom Catchpole) ............... 7 7.2.3 Ecosystem Surveys .................................................................................. 8 7.2.4 Communication with ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM) .............. 8

7.3 Multi-annual Management of SCICOM Expert Groups ................................. 9

7.4 Request on data collection on marine litter during surveys ......................... 10 7.5 ICES Advice on Data Collection Framework .................................................. 11

7.6 Nominations for ICES prizes ............................................................................. 12

7.7 Other comments .................................................................................................. 13

8 Report from FAO (Petri Suuronen) .......................................................................... 13

9 Presentation of Expert Group reports ...................................................................... 15

9.1 Report from the Study Group on Turned 90° Codend Selectivity (SGTCOD; Bent Herrmann) .............................................................................. 15

9.2 Report from Study Group on Electrical Trawling (SGELECTRA; Bob van Marlen) .................................................................................................. 17

10 ToR A: Incorporation of Fishing Technology Issues/Expertise into Management Advice (Mike Pol and Dominic Rihan) .......................................... 20

10.1 General Overview ............................................................................................... 20 10.2 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................. 20

10.3 General issues ...................................................................................................... 20

10.4 Information for individual assessment working groups............................... 33

10.5 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 34

11 ToR B: Redfish Fishing Technology and Physiology (Bent Herrmann) ........... 35

11.1 Background.......................................................................................................... 35

ii | ICES WGFTFB REPORT 2012

11.2 General Overview ............................................................................................... 35 11.3 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................. 35

11.4 List of Participants .............................................................................................. 36

11.5 Individual presentations .................................................................................... 36 11.5.1 A Network to Redevelop a Sustainable Redfish (Sebastes

fasciatus) Trawl Fishery in the Gulf of Maine (Mike Pol, Mass. Division of Marine Fisheries, USA) .......................................... 36

11.5.2 Grid selectivity for redfish (Bent Herrmann, DTU-Aqua) ............... 36 11.5.3 Sticking of redfish in trawlnetting (Discussion) ................................ 37 11.5.4 Some aspects of Redfish Selectivity (A. Pavlenko, PINRO,

Russian Federation) ............................................................................... 37 11.5.5 New Data from Iceland (O. Ingolfsson, Marine Resources

Institute) .................................................................................................. 39

11.6 Recommendations and findings ....................................................................... 39

12 ToR C: Use of Artificial Light in Fishing (Heui-Chun An, Mike Breen, Odd-Børre Humborstad, Yoshiki Matsushita) ....................................................... 40

12.1 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................. 40

12.2 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 40 12.3 List of Participants .............................................................................................. 41

12.4 Background.......................................................................................................... 41

12.5 Session 1 – An introduction to the properties of light underwater and the biology of underwater vision .............................................................. 43 12.5.1 Light and Vision: Use of Artificial Light in Fishing

Operations (Christopher W. Glass). .................................................... 43 12.5.2 Colour vision in fish – pigment adaptability and lens

flexibility (Anne Christine Utne Palm). .............................................. 44 12.6 Session 2 – National/Regional overviews of the use of artificial

light in fisheries, and any associated research. ............................................... 46 12.6.1 An overview of the use of artificial light in world fisheries

(Mike Breen) ........................................................................................... 46 12.6.2 Artificial light in fishing in France (S. Méhault and F.

Morandeau) ............................................................................................ 47 12.6.3 Attraction and trapping of cod using artificial light (Einar

Hreinsson) ............................................................................................... 48 12.6.4 The use of artificial light in fisheries (and associated

researches) in Japan and the Pacific region (Yoshiki Matsushita) ............................................................................................. 48

12.6.5 Use of artificial light in Asian fisheries (Heui Chun An) ................. 50 12.6.6 Energy saving effect of LED fishing lamps for angling and

jigging boats (Heui Chun An, Bong Seong Bae, Kyoung Hoon Lee, Seong Jae Jeong, Jae Hyun Bae and Seong Wook Park) ......................................................................................................... 51

12.6.7 Grazing cod on euphausiids in pen – reduced feeding? (Hjalti Karlsson) ..................................................................................... 52

12.6.8 Use of artificial light in Norwegian fisheries (Svein Løkkeborg) .............................................................................................. 53

ICES WGFTFB REPORT 2012 | iii

12.6.9 Use of artificial light in Basque fisheries (Luis Arregi) ..................... 54 12.6.10 Artifical light, increasing catch in cod pots? (Sven

Gunnar Lunneryd, Sara Königson and Mikael Ovegård) ................ 54 12.6.11 The use of artificial light in fisheries in the USA –

(Pingguo He). ......................................................................................... 55

12.7 Session 3 – New and innovative applications of artificial light in conservation-oriented fishing gear designs .................................................... 56 12.7.1 Current research on colour and light and its application in

conservation-oriented fishing gear designs (Pingguo He) ............... 56

12.8 Session 4 – Discussion on the status and recommendations of the Topic Group......................................................................................................... 58

12.9 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 60

13 ToR D: Innovation in Fishing Gear Technology (Bob van Marlen) ................... 62

13.1 General overview ................................................................................................ 62 13.2 Terms of Reference ............................................................................................. 62

13.3 List of Participants .............................................................................................. 62

13.4 Opening of the meeting ..................................................................................... 63

13.5 Adoption of the agenda ..................................................................................... 63 13.6 Individual presentations .................................................................................... 63

13.6.1 Innovative Fishing Gears in The Netherlands (Bob van Marlen) .................................................................................................... 63

13.6.2 Energy efficiency analysis for Italian fishing vessels through an Energy Audit tool (Antonello Sala, Gabriele Buglioni, Emilio Notti) .......................................................................... 66

13.6.3 The Swedish Grid (Hans Nilsson) ....................................................... 67 13.6.4 Gear innovation to reduce cod capture in the Scottish

Nephrops fishery: the flip/flap and FCAP trawls (Barry O’Neill). ................................................................................................... 68

13.6.5 Prediction of the vertical forces applied on the seabed by a trawl gear (Francois Theret). ................................................................ 71

13.6.6 The effect of introducing pulse trawling in North Sea fisheries on a range of fish major target species (Bob van Marlen) .................................................................................................... 71

13.6.7 Innovative Low Impact and Fuel Efficient (LIFE) fishing practices (Petri Suuronen)..................................................................... 72

13.6.8 DynamiT demonstration (Benoit Vincent) ......................................... 74

13.7 General discussion .............................................................................................. 74 13.8 Summary of lessons learned in this ToR ......................................................... 75

13.9 Recommendations .............................................................................................. 76

14 Open session ................................................................................................................. 77

14.1 Consideration on Low Impact and Fuel Efficient Fishing: Comparing Squid Jigging and Large-scale fish trap fisheries in western Japan (Yoshiki Matsushita)................................................................. 77

14.2 Energy efficiency analysis (Emilio Notti) ........................................................ 78

iv | ICES WGFTFB REPORT 2012

14.3 A Low-Cost, Underwater Self-Closing Codend to Limit Unwanted Catch (Mike Pol for Dave Chosid) .................................................................... 80

14.4 Development of catch control devices in trawl fisheries (Manu Sistiaga for Eduardo Grimaldo) ........................................................................ 81

14.5 A Decade of Research on Shrimp Trawl Design to Reduce Fish Bycatch and Small Shrimps (Pingguo He) ...................................................... 83

14.6 The utility of square mesh codends in UK OTB (Tom Catchpole) .............. 86

14.7 Quantifying fish escape behavior through large mesh panels in trawls based on catch comparison data: model development and a case study from Skagerrak (Ludvig Krag) ...................................................... 88

14.8 Escapement efficiency through a square mesh panel (Bent Herrmann) ........................................................................................................... 89

14.9 Slipping from purse-seines – Simply a source of unaccounted mortality or a potentially responsible way of controlling the catches (Maria Tenningen) ................................................................................ 90

14.10 Predicting and mitigating the benthic impact of towed gears – a case study with a clump weight (F.G. O’Neill, A. Ivanovic, L. Robinson and R. J. Fryer) ................................................................................... 91

14.11 Catch comparison of pulse trawl vessels and a tickler chain beam trawler (Bob van Marlen) ................................................................................... 94

14.12 Measuring sediment mobilization by fishing gears using a Multi Beam Echo Sounder (F.G. O’Neill, Dan Parsons, Steve Simmons, J Best, Phil Copland, Eric Armstrong, Mike Breen and Keith Summerbell) ........................................................................................................ 96

14.13 Prediction of the vertical forces applied on the seabed by a trawl gear (Francois Theret) ........................................................................................ 97

14.14 Light and vision (Chris Glass) .......................................................................... 98

14.15 Synthesis of International Fishing Gear Laboratories Organization (Sonia Mehault) ................................................................................................... 99

15 National Reports ........................................................................................................ 101

15.1 Review of National Reports (Mike Pol) ......................................................... 101

15.2 Canada ............................................................................................................... 102 15.2.1 Fisheries and Marine Institute of Memorial University of

Newfoundland ..................................................................................... 102 15.2.2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Central and Arctic Region ........... 104 15.2.3 Fisheries and Oceans Canada – Maritimes Region ......................... 104 15.2.4 Merinov Centre d’Innovation de l’Aquaculture et des

Pêches du Québec ................................................................................ 105 15.2.5 Simon Fraser University and Vancouver Island University .......... 106

15.3 France ................................................................................................................ 107 15.3.1 Ifremer Fishing gear technology laboratory ..................................... 107

15.4 Iceland ................................................................................................................ 109 15.4.1 Marine Research Institute ................................................................... 109

15.5 Ireland ................................................................................................................ 110

ICES WGFTFB REPORT 2012 | v

15.5.1 Bord Iascaigh Mhara............................................................................ 110 15.6 Italy ................................................................................................................ 111

15.6.1 National Research Council (CNR). Institute of Marine Sciences (ISMAR) – Fisheries Section, Ancona ................................ 111

15.7 Japan ................................................................................................................ 114 15.7.1 Fishing Technology Laboratory, Graduate School of

Fisheries Science and Environmental Studies, Nagasaki University ............................................................................................. 114

15.7.2 Nagasaki Prefectural Institute of Fisheries ....................................... 115 15.7.3 Department of Fisheries Science, Faculty of Agriculture,

Kinki-Daigaku University, Study Group of Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour ........................................................ 115

15.7.4 School of Fisheries Sciences, Hokkaido University ......................... 116

15.8 Netherlands ....................................................................................................... 117 15.8.1 IMARES/ILVO ...................................................................................... 117

15.9 Norway .............................................................................................................. 122

15.10 Spain (Basque region) ...................................................................................... 128 15.10.1 AZTI Tecnalia (Technological Institute for Fisheries and

Food; www.azti.es) by the Marine and Fishing Gear Technology Research Area. ................................................................ 128

15.11 Scotland .............................................................................................................. 130 15.11.1 Marine Scotland – Science, Marine Laboratory,

Aberdeen ............................................................................................... 130

15.12 USA ................................................................................................................ 131 15.12.1 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries –

Conservation Engineering Program .................................................. 131 15.12.2 NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Fisheries Science Center,

Protected Species Branch, Woods Hole, Massachusetts ................. 132 15.12.3 University of Rhode Island Fisheries Center, Kingston,

Rhode Island ......................................................................................... 133 15.12.4 University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island................. 135 15.12.5 Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction ............................... 135 15.12.6 University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, School for

Marine Science and Technology (SMAST), New Bedford, MA ......................................................................................................... 137

15.12.7 NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Fisheries Science Center ................ 141 15.12.8 NOAA Fisheries, Southwest Region and Southwest

Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, California ................................... 144 15.12.9 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marine

Resources Program, Newport, Oregon ............................................. 146 15.12.10 NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center,

Seattle, Washington ............................................................................. 147 15.12.11 NOAA Fisheries, Alaska Fisheries Science Center,

Seattle, Washington ............................................................................. 149 15.12.12 NOAA Fisheries, Pacific Islands Region and Pacific

Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, Hawai'i ...................... 150

vi | ICES WGFTFB REPORT 2012

15.13 Discussion of National Reports ...................................................................... 151

16 Other business............................................................................................................ 152

16.1 SELDAT database ............................................................................................. 152 16.2 Theme Session Topics for ICES ASC 2013 ..................................................... 152

16.3 2013 Annual Meeting ....................................................................................... 152 16.3.1 Location ................................................................................................. 152 16.3.2 Meeting Structure ................................................................................ 153 16.3.3 Terms of Reference for 2013 ............................................................... 154

16.4 AOB and concluding remarks ......................................................................... 155

Annex 1: List of Participants............................................................................................. 156

Annex 2: Agenda ................................................................................................................. 162

Annex 3: WGFTFB terms of reference for the next meeting ....................................... 165

Annex 4: Recommendations ............................................................................................. 169

Annex 5: WGFTFB information for other ICES expert groups and questionnaire sent to WGFTFB members ............................................................. 170

Annex 6: A Partial Global Summary of the Fisheries Using Artificial Light .......... 191

Annex 7: Bibliography for Use of Artificial Light in Fisheries .................................. 198

ICES WGFTFB REPORT 2012 | 1

Executive summary

The ICES-FAO Working Group on Fish Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB) met in Lorient, France from 23–27 April 2012 to address four Terms of Reference. The main outcomes related to the ToRs are detailed below.

Key Findings

ToR A: Incorporation of Fishing Technology Issues/Expertise into Manage-ment Advice (Section 10)

• As in the last previous 3–4 years fuel prices were the dominant feature in all countries that affected fleet dynamics. Rising costs were manifested in multiple ways: shifts in gear, modifications to fishing practices, changes in vessel powering. Of particular note is the shift in the Netherlands away from traditional beam trawling to the use of the pulse trawl and the Sum Wing. It is now apparent that within the Netherlands, driven primarily by the cost of fuel, there is a huge demand to use the pulse trawl and the number of vessels applying to fish under the 5% derogation far exceeds the number of licences available. Vessels not using the pulse trawl in the Netherlands are finding it increasingly difficult to get financial support from banks on economical (high fuel prices making beam trawling uneco-nomic) and ecological grounds (beam trawls are portrayed negatively).

• As in previous years there is very little evidence of technology creep. Most changes are related to improving fuel efficiency measures. In the Nether-lands and Belgium uptake of the SumWing has increased. The develop-ment of fuel efficient trawl designs, off-bottom doors in demersal trawling and the use of Dynex warp seen in 2010 and 2011seems to have spread to many countries.

• Uptake of selective gears continues to be limited and driven primarily by legislation. Interesting developments include the SELTRA used in Den-mark and also tested in Ireland and also the Flip-flap trawl developed in the UK. Both of these devices are designed to reduce cod catches in demer-sal fisheries.

• Discarding due to quota closures was especially noted in Ireland and Spain. Shifts in discarding rates were linked to population changes in Ire-land and France.

• A number of gear modifications have been tested and in some cases are be-ing used to reduce the bottom impact of towed gears. As reported under Technical Creep there has also been considerable testing of trawl doors rigged to fish off-bottom, primarily driven by fuel prices. Both initiatives potentially have benefits in respect of reduced bottom impact.

• Virtually no new fisheries were been reported in 2012. Experimentation of static gears as a means for targeting fish has continued although the indi-cations are that these fisheries are still not economically viable in most cases.

2 ICES WGFTFB REPORT 2012

ToR B: Redfish fishing technology and physiology (Section 11)

• Terms of reference have been achieved to an acceptable level. • Collaborations have been established between members and will continue

outside the context of meetings of WGFTFB. One published paper (Herrmann, B. et al., 2012. Understanding the Size Selectivity of Redfish (Sebastes spp.) in North Atlantic Trawl Codends. Journal of Northwest At-lantic Fishery Science, 44, pp.1–13) and others in development arose from the topic group.

• The group should be dissolved.

ToR C: The Use of Artificial Light in Fisheries (Section 12)

• The group reviewed the terms of reference and agreed that it would be necessary to address aims 1–3, before aims 4 and 5 could be completed. Therefore, priority should be given to tasks associated with aims 1–3 in the first year of the groups work.

• It was agreed that in order to support the activities of the group in ad-dressing these ToRs the group would need to recruit further expertise in each of the following areas: • physics and measurement of artificial light in water; • engineering and design of artificial lights, including the development

of energy efficient light sources; • biology of vision, in particular recognition of the natural limits and

variation; • behavioural responses of fish to artificial light; and • technological application of artificial light in fisheries, including novel

and innovative approaches.

Potential candidates were identified and will be contacted.

• The ICES/FAO WGFTFB Topic Group on the Use of Artificial Light in Fisheries makes the following recommendations to the ICES/FAO WGFTFB: • The Topic Group on the Use of Artificial Light in Fisheries should con-

tinue working by correspondence and meetings (at next WGFTFB meeting) under amended terms of reference (see below);

• It is proposed a theme session should be held at the next ICES/FAO WGFTFB meeting on “the use of artificial light as a stimulus on fish behaviour in fish capture”; and

• The Topic Group supports the proposal for the next WGFTFB meeting to be held in Asia. This venue will facilitate the development and work of this group, by opening lines of communication with experts in Asia currently working in the field of light fishing.

• Amended Terms of Reference: • A WGFTFB topic group of experts will be formed in 2012 to evaluate present

and future applications of artificial light in fishing gear design and opera-tions. The group will work through literature reviews, questionnaires, corre-spondence and face-to-face discussions.

• Specifically the group aims to:


Describe and summarize fish response to artificial light stimuli; Describe and summarize use of artificial light in world fisheries; Describe and tabulate different light sources to attract fish; Describe challenges of current use of artificial lights in fisheries and

identify/suggest potential solutions; Identify new and innovative applications of artificial light in attracting,

guiding, and repelling fish in developing bycatch reduction devices and other sustainable fishing methods; and

Provide guidance on conducting experiments to investigate the use of ar-tificial light as a stimulus in fish capture.

ToR D: Innovation in Fishing Gear Technology (Section 13)

• It was acknowledged that the working scene is changing. Fishermen have PCs too, they use Internet more and more, are aware of threats to the fish-ing industry, have own ideas and creativity, and are not waiting for us.

• Good incentives are needed for successful innovation, such as: cost reduc-tions (fuel price !!!), more days-at-sea (DAS) when using selective gears, or access to fishing grounds only if selective gears are used.

• Fishermen Study Groups (as in The Netherlands) can be used help the process of innovation. They create more motivation, and a sense of prob-lem ownership by the fishers.

• Scientists should have a role in innovation. Developments by industry alone may lead to unwanted ecosystem effects. WGFTFB has an interna-tional view and wide experience, knowledge of gears, behaviour, statistics, and suitable instrumentation (e.g. RCTV).

• Group interactions between fishers often occur, resulting in differing be-haviour. Experience shows that it is sometimes better to address a single individual and work with him, and then others will follow when they see results.

• Trust building and communication are important, but trust is easily lost. • There is a tension between the objectives of creating more efficiency and

ecosystem conservation. In order to survive businesses need efficiency and income exceeding costs, but on the other hand ecosystem constraints and conservation do not ask for more efficient gears and higher catches.

• This ToR will not be continued.


1 Directive

The directive of the WGFTFB is to initiate and review investigations of scientists and technologists concerned with all aspects of the design, planning and testing of fishing gears used in abundance estimation, selective fishing gears for bycatch and discard reduction, as well as benign environmentally fishing gears and methods with re-duced impact on the seabed and other non-target ecosystem components.

The Working Group's activities shall focus on all measurements and observations pertaining to both scientific and commercial fishing gears, design and statistical methods and operations including benthic impacts, vessels and behaviour of fish in relation to fishing operations. The Working Group shall provide advice on applica-tion of these techniques to aquatic ecologists, assessment biologists, fishery managers and industry.

2 Introduction

Chair: Michael Pol Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 1213 Purchase St – 3rd Floor New Bedford, Massachusetts USA E-mail: [email protected] Co-Chair: Petri Suuronen FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Rome Italy E-mail: [email protected] Rapporteur: Bob van Marlen IMARES, Wageningen UR Ĳmuiden The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]

Venue: Lorient, France

Date: 23–27 April 2012

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3 Terms of Reference

2011/2/SSGESST07 The ICES-FAO Working Group on Fishing Technology and Fish Behaviour (WGFTFB), chaired by Mike Pol, US, and Petri Suuronen, FAO-Rome, met in Lorient, France, 23–27 April 2012.

a ) Incorporation of Fishing Technology Issues/Expertise into Management Advice. Based on the questionnaire exercise carried out since 2005/2006;

b ) A WGFTFB topic group of experts formed in 2011 will meet in 2012 with the following terms of reference: i ) Create an inventory of gear specifications (such as mesh size, trawl

design, trawl orientation) used in harvesting redfish in member countries;

ii ) Describe and synthesize research carried on size selectivity with various mesh sizes and configurations and investigate possible technical measures that could reduce the loss of redfish at the sur-face due to their developed buoyancy;

iii ) Collect morphometric information necessary to predict size selec-tivity;

iv ) Examine habitat use, especially water depth and water columns, by major commercial redfish species and application of the informa-tion for selective capture by trawls.

c ) A WGFTFB topic group of experts will meet in 2012 to continue to ad-dress the issue of Innovation in fishing gear technology and the success of collaboration between fishers and scientists with the following terms of reference: i ) Review current technological developments and initiatives in gear

technology and give examples of successful developments both in the EU and in other countries globally;

ii ) Discuss the contributions of fishers and scientists in the process of collaboration and identify conditions enabling rapid uptake of new technology, without the risk of introducing new adverse ecosystem effects;

iii ) Consider the use of models with which the effect on the marine ecosystem (concerning target species, fish and benthos bycatches, bottom impact) of introducing new innovative gears in fishing fleets can be appraised.

d ) A WGFTFB topic group of experts will be formed in 2012 to evaluate present and future applications of artificial light in fishing gear design and operations. The group will work through literature reviews, ques-tionnaires, correspondence and face-to-face discussions. Specifically the group aims to: i ) Describe and summarize fish response to artificial light stimuli; ii ) Describe and summarize use of artificial light in world fisheries; iii ) Describe and tabulate different light sources to attract fish; iv ) Describe challenges of current use of artificial lights in fisheries and

identify/suggest potential solutions;


v ) Identify new and innovative applications of artificial light in at-tracting, guiding, and repelling fish in developing bycatch reduc-tion devices and other sustainable fishing methods;

WGFTFB will report by 14 June 2012 (via SSGESST) for the attention of SCICOM and ACOM.

4 Participants

A full list of participants is given in Annex 1.

5 Explanatory note on meeting and report structure

The approach adopted in 2004 of addressing specific TORs was adopted for the 2012 meeting. Individual conveners were appointed during prior meetings to oversee and facilitate work by correspondence throughout the year and at the meeting. The Chair asked the convener of each ToR to prepare a working document, reviewing their progress on their ToRs and recommendations and conclusions based on the topic group’s work. Two days were allocated for the conveners and members of the indi-vidual Topic Groups to meet, finalize their reports and findings, and produce a pres-entation to the WG and prepare a final report for inclusion in the FTFB report. The summaries and recommendations for the working documents for each ToR were reviewed by WGFTFB and were accepted, rejected or modified accordingly to reflect the views of the WGFTFB. However, the contents of these working documents do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the WGFTFB. Some topic groups included small numbers of individual presentations based on specific research programmes related to that topic. The abstracts are included in this report, together with the authors’ names. Although discussion relating to the individual presentations was encouraged and some of the comments are included in the text of this report, the contents of the individual abstracts were NOT discussed fully by the group, and as such they do not necessarily reflect the views of the WGFTFB.

6 Opening of the meeting

The meeting was opened by the chair. Welcoming remarks were made, and logistics explained by Gerard Bavouzet of Ifremer, the host institution. Bob van Marlen (Neth-erlands) volunteered to serve as rapporteur, and was accepted by the WG.

Following a review by the chair to the group, the agenda was adopted as attached in Annex 2.

7 Report from ICES (Mike Pol)

7.1 Developments in the ICES-FAO relationship in regards to WGFTFB

An exchange of letters between Manuel Barange of ICES and A. G. Mathiesen of FAO in June 2011 elaborated the arrangements regarding WGFTFB under the existing ICES-FAO Memorandum of Understanding signed in 1996.

The exchange of letters defined the purpose of the relationship as facilitating collabo-ration and communication between the member countries of ICES and FAO to ad-dress all aspects of fishing technology and fish capture in order to further contribute to ensuring the sustainability of fisheries resources globally.


FAO will appoint a Co-Chair for WGFTFB, and organize the annual meeting every third year, beginning 2013. The meeting location will be in Rome, Italy or other loca-tion determined by FAO. In March 2012, SCICOM reinforced the ability of FAO to choose the location without restriction by ICES; with the understanding the member institutions may find it difficult to approve travel to some locations. Petri Suuronen co-chaired the 2012 meeting in Lorient, in place of Frank Chopin.

FAO-organized meetings will include a mini symposium format, with special consid-eration given to attendance by developing States. Thematic issues could include, among other topics:

i ) bycatch and discards; ii ) fishing gear selectivity; iii ) policy related to technical conservation measures; iv ) reduction of aquatic and environmental damage associated with fishing

operations including reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; v ) fish behaviour in relation to fish capture processes; vi ) low impact fuel efficient capture techniques; vii ) fish detection, tracking and other remote sensing technologies used in

fishing operations; viii ) novel and innovative harvesting systems including live capture tech-

niques.

7.2 Report on developments from the 2011 Annual Science Conference

7.2.1 The Marine Framework Strategy Directive (MFSD)

The Marine Framework Strategy Directive (MFSD) has a big impact. All ICES Work-ing Groups (WGs) should emphasize biodiversity and other descriptors found in the MFSD, and ToRs should be made relevant to biodiversity and other aspects of the MFSD.

7.2.2 MSFD vs. WGFTFB – a very quick guide (Tom Catchpole)

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) aims to achieve Good Environ-mental Status in Europe’s seas by 2020. Good Environmental Status (GES) involves protecting the marine environment, preventing its deterioration and restoring it where practical, while using marine resources sustainably. The Directive sets out 11 high-level Descriptors of Good Environmental Status which cover all the key aspects of the marine ecosystem and all the main human pressures on them.

Main relevance to WGFTFB (and the fishing industry): Achieving GES will involve both ensuring that commercial fish and shellfish stocks are harvested sustainably (MSFD Descriptor 3), and ensuring that the impacts of fishing activities on the wider marine ecosystem are sustainable (MSFD Descriptor 1, biodiversity, Descriptor 4, foodwebs and Descriptor 6, seabed integrity).

MSFD Descriptors for determining good environmental status are:

1 ) Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.


2 ) Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystems.

3 ) Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.

4 ) All elements of the marine foodwebs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the species and the retention of their full re-productive capacity.

5 ) Human-induced eutrophication is minimized, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful al-gae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters.

6 ) Seabed integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected.

7 ) Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely af-fect marine ecosystems.

8 ) Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution ef-fects.

9 ) Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other relevant stan-dards.

10 ) Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.

11 ) Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment.

More information is given in: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/marine-strategy-framework-directive/index_en.htm http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF

7.2.3 Ecosystem Surveys

SSGESST was asked with the input from Expert Groups (EGs) to develop pro-grammes for ecosystem monitoring, and find efficiencies in response to reduced funding. The strategy will depend on whether a related Theme Session for 2012 is accepted. This will involve developing ToRs for WGISDAA and/or well-focused workshops. SSGESST will also establish a group of Survey EG chairs to develop a plan for review of surveys and survey Expert Groups and to propose action items for SSGESST in 2012/13, and it should also involve ACOM and STECF.

7.2.4 Communication with ICES Advisory Committee (ACOM)

The need for improved communication and coordination with ACOM has become increasingly apparent. WGFTFB has communicated with ACOM via WGCHAIRS and received positive feedback on the input provided to assessment groups via the reports generated each year by WGFTFB through the ADVICE ToR.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/marine-strategy-framework-directive/index_en.htmhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/eu-coast-and-marine-policy/marine-strategy-framework-directive/index_en.htmhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDFhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF


7.3 Multi-annual Management of SCICOM Expert Groups

In September 2011, after consultation with chairs of Expert Groups (EGs [EGs include Workshops (W/S), Study Groups (SG), and Working Groups (WGs)]), the ICES Sci-ence Committee (SCICOM) agreed to a staggered process of introducing multi-annual Terms of Reference (ToR), as part of 2009 reform of the science structure.

Goals:

• Reduce the burden of annual reporting on EGs, and provide the groups with a longer-perspective to focus their activity.

• Ensure that ToRs have clear and focused outcomes (e.g. publications, soft-ware/ methodology, datasets, advisory inputs, public outreach, etc.) that demonstrate advances and innovation. A new template for EG resolutions will reflect this.

• Ensure ICES recognizes and values the work of its EGs through an objec-tive self-evaluation that facilitates the uptake of their outcomes. This will also help ICES prioritize, support and defend the ongoing work of EGs.

• Facilitate the identification, uptake and follow up of EG outputs directly into the ICES advisory activities, through a more dynamic, objective-driven management system.

• Re-balance the interactions between the EGs and SCICOM in favour of sci-ence strategy issues at the onset and completion of each multi-annual ToR.

• Make the EG portfolio more responsive to future changes in the ICES Sci-ence Plan, as well as other scientific priorities.

To achieve these goals, SCICOM has proposed changes to the operations of all Expert Groups. These changes were circulated to the WGFTFB by the Chair early in 2012, and the responses were provided to SCICOM prior to the meeting. WGFTFB re-sponses to each proposed change were reported at the meeting, as follows.

1 ) The terms for all EGs would be fixed at an initial 3-year. Currently, SGs and W/S have fixed duration. WGs have open-ended terms. Renewals could be requested. SGs disappear as a structure as they are effectively an EG with a single term. W/S are not affected by these changes. Response from WGFTFB: It is not in WG’s best interests to have continued existence questioned in a partnership. All discussions regarding the future of WGFTFB should be conducted together with FAO. FAO hosting every third year may interfere with this cycle.

2 ) Terms of Reference (ToRs) for all EGs will be approved by SCICOM at the onset for the full duration of 3 years, instead of annually. New ToRs can be considered in response to ad hoc requests. Response from WGFTFB: Multiyear ToRs are already being used by WGFTFB through topic groups, but not in synchronization with each other.

3 ) EGs will provide interim, reduced, reports at the end of years 1 and 2 of their appointment, and a final, comprehensive report at the end of year 3, replacing annual reporting. Response from WGFTFB: The WGFTFB report contains information that is best captured annually (Technological Creep/Advice, progress by topic groups, National reports), and this change would not reduce the reporting burden.


4 ) EGs will self-assess, through a simple questionnaire that identifies and showcases their achievements against original goals. Renewals for further terms are considered by SCICOM based on justification and self- assess-ments. Previously, EGs were not evaluated systematically. Response from WGFTFB: It is questioned whether EGs can be the best judges of their own worth, and whether there are EGs that have outlived their usefulness. Also, it is seen as a task for steering groups (SSGs) to de-termine relevance and effectiveness of EGs.

The ICES-FAO WGFTFB feels strongly that this group is a highly effective and unique expert group that has endured and prospered. The group is well-respected worldwide and broadening its reach globally, with recent progress in connecting to Latin America and Asia. Especially in these early stages of the stronger partnership with FAO, any changes should be carefully considered, as they will set the tone for the relationship and the group’s success.

WGFTFB should emphasize its relevance and value through:

• Tangible, useful products, including peer-reviewed original research, re-view papers, CRRs and others, perhaps by direct reference in a document,

• Relevant and important results within the ICES system, and • Responses to requests.

7.4 Request on data collection on marine litter during surveys

Thomas Maes of Cefas requested feedback from bottom trawl survey experts in WGFTFB on the potential use of surveys to collect data on marine litter under the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The information requested could also be used on the comments on the new Data Collection Framework, namely on the move towards integrated surveys.

In his view, litter collection under existing fisheries schemes is hindered by the dif-ferent types of trawls (GOV or Beam trawls), and a non-harmonized approach in litter data collection.

Ideas from the group were sought by e-mail and at the meeting in terms of:

• Possibility of further harmonization between different types of nets used in IBTS (GOV/Beam, net apertures, mesh, codend sizes, ...) or at least an overview of the exact types of net in use across the different parties with similarities and differences.

• Known previous studies where catch percentage is compared between dif-ferent net types to determine ratios between GOV and Beam trawls.

• Adaptations of fishing gear or surveys to allow better catch/reporting of litter

• Harmonization of different types of cruises delivering information to IBTS (e.g.: trawl time, station planning, ...).

• Advice on implementing the reporting sheet and making sure the same procedures are used on all cruises.

• Evaluating the Standard Operating Procedures: Ease of use? Reporting sheet? Suggestions?

• Future changes which can be implemented to make litter collection easier on their cruises.


• Parameters which can be easily added to the survey without loss of time for primary objectives and cost implications but relevance to marine litter quantities and its distribution (e.g.: storm events, shipping routes, fishing hot spots, water temperature, wind direction, wave heights, ...) .

• Personal Opinions and relevant experiences in relation to marine litter dur-ing IBTS cruises.

• Any Ideas or requests for better integration? Problems they foresee? • AOB in relation to Marine Litter.

Ingeborg de Boois (from IMARES, The Netherlands) has sent in a written response, stating that:

• Data are collected on some NL surveys, with space limiting on others. • Data collection parameters are still uncertain under MSFD, so we don’t

know who wants what information. Parameters may vary by nation. • Uniform, easy-to-handle data sheets. • Clear litter characterizations. • Central data storage location. • Strange to modify any gears to improve litter registration, at least when us-

ing the current surveys as a source of information. • If a new survey is going to be designed, then it would be good to think

about this issue.

ICES WGISUR (chaired by Dave Reid) has discussed the optimal ecosystem survey and a report will be made available soon.

Jens-Otto Krakstad (IMR, Norway) has informed WGFTFB that the Nansen program along the west coast of Africa has recently initiated routine collection of information on marine litter. For the moment they are collecting very basic information, only number of items per trawl and type of litter in broad categories, plastic, metal, fishing gear, other litter. Keeping the registration simple has been a goal as every extra sam-pling activity one undertakes on-board is costly.

7.5 ICES Advice on Data Collection Framework

ICES draft advice, described below, on the Data Collection Framework (DCF) was presented to the group for any comment.

Sampling should be on a coordinated regional basis rather than on a national basis, including:

• Designing data collection from the outset to most efficiently cover fisheries activities and fisheries ecosystem impacts on a marine ecoregion scale.

• Further development and maintenance of regional databases holding the DCF data to give end-users effective access to the data while applying the access rules of the DCF.

• Sampling should be on a coordinated regional basis rather than on a na-tional basis, including: • Designing data collection from the outset to most efficiently cover

fisheries activities and fisheries ecosystem impacts on a marine ecore-gion scale.


• Further development and maintenance of regional databases holding the DCF data to give end-users effective access to the data while applying the access rules of the DCF.

Further integrated data collection in order to address both fishery impacts on marine ecosystems and an ecosystem approach to marine management.

Integrated data needed to assess the ecosystem impacts of fisheries including data on bycatches of all biota, discards, impacts on foodwebs, biodiversity and population genetics and on habitats.

Integrated data collection in order to support an ecosystem approach beyond fisher-ies, including data collection requirements that will be needed in order to demon-strate compliance with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Habitats Directive.

This should specifically be reflected in a move towards multi-functional surveys and monitoring which collect integrated data regarding fisheries and the environment.

Improve end-user access to data as needed for assessments and to respond to policy needs. This means specifically that data must be available with high spatial resolu-tion, which may imply on single vessel /single haul basis.

Currently the exception clause in Art 20(4) of Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 is used by those responding to requests for data to prevent access to detailed data in Art 18 of the same Regulation and, in practice, detailed data are not available. This undermines the ability to provide scientific advice on ecosystem impacts (DCF indicator 5, 6, 7 of Annex XIII of Commission Decision 2010/93) and on spatial regulation of fisheries activities as for instance implied in the habitats directive. If exception clauses are introduced, they must be associated with clear delimitations of their applicability.

The data collection programmes should be flexible so that new data types can be included in future without Member States incurring financial penalties. Research vessel survey resource in Europe is finite, and the collection of new data for Euro-pean policies such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive will require less tradi-tional data being collected. Such flexibility must be built into the new DCF.

7.6 Nominations for ICES prizes

The group was asked to consider:

• Nominations for the prestigious ICES Prix d’Excellence and Outstanding Achievement Awards, are being solicited for awards to be made in Bergen at the ASC 2012. The deadline for nominations is 1 June 2012.

• The Awards, nomination procedures, and deadlines are fully described on the ICES website (http://www.ices.dk/iceswork/awards.asp).

• Outstanding Achievement: This award recognizes a person who has made substantial and outstanding contributions to ICES in the broad field of ma-rine science or management over at least a 15-yr period. The award can be made on an annual basis.

• Prix d’Excellence: This award recognizes a scientist who has made ex-traordinary contributions to marine science. The person need not be an ac-tive contributor to ICES or its activities. The award can be made once every three years or, under extraordinary circumstances, in other years. An award is anticipated in 2011.

http://www.ices.dk/iceswork/awards.asp


• Persons previously nominated will be fully eligible for consideration dur-ing evaluation of nominees in 2012. These nominations must be updated, however, with at least a communication to the Awards Committee re-questing such consideration.

7.7 Other comments

Further points mentioned were:

• Develop new topic group, study group, workshop, and ASC 2012 theme session proposals for Friday.

• National reports ASAP! • Advice Questionnaires are to be filled-in! • Use the SharePoint site to upload documents.

8 Report from FAO (Petri Suuronen)

FAO informed and updated the ICES WGFTFB members of FAO’s work priorities in fishing technology and other fields closely related to the work of the Working Group. The list of activities shown included the status of the following issues:

• International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Dis-cards.

• FAO driven projects on trawl fisheries bycatch management. • Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) projects – Tuna, Deep Sea. • A practical guide on comparative testing of BRDs. • Low-Impact and Fuel-Efficient (LIFE) fishing. • GHG reduction in fisheries. • Fisher safety at sea (http://www.safety-for-fishermen.org). • Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs). • FAO Technical Guidelines for MPAs. • Stop IUU fishing award. • FAO Gear Catalogue – update. • Committee on Fisheries (COFI 30th).

FAO International Guidelines on Bycatch Management and Reduction of Discards were adopted by the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 2011. The Guidelines present a general framework for effective bycatch management. FAO is currently promoting the implementation of these guidelines. The objectives and expected outcomes of some regional FAO-facilitated bycatch projects, such as REBYC-II CTI, were pre-sented. This project aims at improved bycatch management in SE-Asian multispecies bottom/shrimp trawl fisheries. The overarching goal is the sustainable use of fisheries resources and healthier marine ecosystems. The expected outcomes of the project include (i) agreed trawl bycatch management plans, (ii) improved measures and techniques to reduce problematic bycatch, (iii) better use of residual bycatch, (iv) critical barriers for executing responsible fishing addressed and (v) effective incen-tives identified for trawl operators. The project is funded by the Global Environ-mental Facility (GEF) and the participating countries (Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and Papua New Guinea). The Southeast Asian Fisheries Devel-opment Center (SEAFDEC) is the regional project facilitation unit. The WG was in-

http://www.safety-for-fishermen.org/


formed of a soon-to-be-published FAO Practical Guide on Comparative Testing of Bycatch Reduction Devices in Tropical Shrimp-trawl Fisheries (author Steve Eayrs).

Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) cover more than 60% of the world’s ocean’s surface. Management issues for these areas are complex but increasingly im-portant for fisheries. Challenges include increased pelagic fishing for highly migra-tory species, lack of comprehensive legal instruments and normal management options, extensive marine debris and pollution, and high impacts on biodiversity. Two large ABNJ projects under preparation at the lead of FAO were presented briefly (ABNJ Tuna and Deep-sea). Both of these projects include a bycatch component.

The WG was updated on a FAO driven approach on Low Impact and Fuel Efficient (LIFE) fishing practices. An introduction into the topic was published in early 2012 in Fisheries Research. Case studies will be looked at (with socio-economics involved) and the theme will likely be one of the themes for FTFB 2013 mini-symposium. The WG was informed that an expert workshop on GHG emission strategies in fisheries was held in January 2012 at FAO. According to preliminary analysis, fishing vessels are the largest GHG emitters in the sector, followed by processing plants, with transpor-tation at a lower scale. A supply chain approach can identify hot spots for GHG emis-sions. The second workshop will produce practical guidance for fishing industry. It was noted that FAO is involved in the development and practical guidelines of Fish Aggregation Devices (FADs) for small-scale fisheries. It was also noted that the new FAO Gear Catalogue is at the final stage but still needs approval of the Coordination Working Party in Fisheries Statistics.

FAO has recently published Technical Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Fisheries. The guidelines provide guidance on implementation of MPAs when one of the primary objectives is related to fisheries management. The WG was also informed that IUU-fishing continues to be a major problem in world fisheries. A Stop IUU Fishing Award competition will be issued in July 2012. Selection criteria are ef-fectiveness, innovativeness, and feasibility.

The WG was informed that the Committee on Fisheries (COFI) will have its 30th meet-ing in July 2012 at FAO HQ in Rome. COFI meets every two years to among other subjects monitor the world fisheries situation, discuss emerging international issues, agree on binding and voluntary agreements, examine and evaluate FAO work on fisheries, and agree on FAO’s program of work. COFI offers a platform to INGOs, IGOs and industry representatives to communicate with governmental authorities in charge of fisheries. It is an excellent opportunity to foster cooperation between vari-ous stakeholders. Total attendance at the COFI meeting has in recent years been some 500–600 persons.

According to the recent agreement between FAO and ICES, FAO will host the WGFTFB meeting every 3rd year at a location of FAO’s choosing. The 2013 WGFTFB meeting will be the first meeting hosted by FAO. FAO is currently exploring two options for the venue: Bangkok, Thailand and FAO HQ in Rome, Italy (other options are still possible). The meeting will consist of issues that cross-cut both FAO and ICES interests. Part of the meeting will be organized as thematic “mini symposiums”. The structure, duration and preparation of these thematic mini symposiums, however, are still largely open for discussion. A list of possible topics was shown to stimulate the discussion. Input ideas were requested from this group, with suggestions for conveners latest by early September 2012. It was stressed that during the 2013 WGFTFB meeting time will be allowed also for continuation of the more traditional “ICES work”. FAO will give special consideration to the attendance by developing


States and non-ICES countries. It was noted during discussion that meetings outside ICES countries likely create funding challenges for many participants from the ICES area but might attract new participation, for instance from Asia and Latin America.

Discussion

For the 2013 WGFTFB meeting two options for the venue were considered: Bangkok, or Rome. Bangkok would provide the advantage that it is also possible to attract workers from outside ICES, e.g. from Asia, and Latin America, which would enhance WGFTFB’s global perspective. The question was raised whether the meeting should then be held in a multi-lingual format. The meeting may be organized as mini-symposiums, with room for presenting traditional ICES-work. Input ideas were re-quested from this group, with suggestions for conveners by September 2012. A plea was made to focus on Light Impact Fuel Efficient (LIFE) fisheries. A list of possible topics was discussed. The procedure of decision in ICES runs through the ASC in September. There might be a problem concerning funding opportunities for some participants. Although remote places might attract new participation, e.g. from scien-tists working with artificial light in fisheries, the economic situation at present with budgets likely to get cut (in Europe at least) may deter participants from the ICES-areas to come. Input for ideas on topics is welcomed.

9 Presentation of Expert Group reports

9.1 Report from the Study Group on Turned 90° Codend Selectivity (SGTCOD; Bent Herrmann)

The ICES Study Group on Turned 90º Codend Selectivity, focusing on Baltic Cod Selectivity (SGTCOD) was planned to run for 3 years (2009–2011), extended to 2012 by consent of ICES. The SGTCOD 2012 meeting will take place 23–26 October in Rostock, Germany. The Study Group will have the following terms of reference for the 2012 meeting:

• Evaluate the effect of turning diamond netting by 90⁰ (T90) on codend se-lectivity.

• Improve knowledge of the size selection processes in T90 codends com-pared to T0 codends (normal direction of diamond netting).

• Attempt to quantify the magnitude of the effects of different factors (con-struction, generic netting properties, stock specific morphology, catch composition).

• Develop a guide on T90 codend constructions with respect to size selection properties and optimal construction.

• To compare the selective properties T90 codends with those of the other legal designs targeting Baltic cod.

• Review available data on fish survival and in particular cod escaping from T90 codends.

During the first three years of SGTCOD, scientists from Germany, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Sweden, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Russia have participated in the SGTCOD meetings and have provided information and/or contributed with additional work to the group. A number of new selectivity trials have been con-ducted mainly by Germany with participation of also other SGTCOD members. Ad-ditional new selectivity data have also been provided from Denmark, Norway,


Turkey and Iceland which helps establish the understanding of the basic principles of how T90 selectivity works. Data on fish morphology have been collected for main species in Baltic Sea and is currently being analysed.

Concrete achievements of the SGTCOD include:

• Assessment of the influence of number of meshes around in the codend on size selectivity in T0 (standard diamond mesh codend) and T90 codends. The study concludes that the number of meshes around needs to be con-sidered which is also done in the current legislation for use of T90 in Baltic Sea trawl fishery. The study is published as:

Wienbeck, H., Herrmann, B., Moderhak, W., and Stepputtis, D. (2011). Effect of netting direction and number of meshes around on size selection in the codend for Baltic cod (Gadus morhua). Fisheries Re-search, 109(1), 80–88.

• Assessment of the influence of the codend twine-thickness on size selectiv-ity for T0 and T90 codends on Baltic cod. A German research cruise was conducted testing 12 different designs in 43 hauls with more than 64,000 cod caught and measured. The study concluded: I) single twine provides better selectivity (higher L50 values) compared to double twine for both T0 and T90 codends; II) single T90 is preferable as its size selection is less de-pendent on twine diameter than for the other constructions; III) double twine T90 has no advantage compared to single twine T0. Currently work is ongoing with the aim to document this study in a scientific paper.

Figure 1. Prediction of L50 for cod as a function of twine thickness from model studies.

• Investigation and comparison of the escapement patterns of Baltic cod from T90 and BACOMA codends. During a German research cruise it was investigated to which extent cod of different sizes did escape during tow-ing at the seabed and during haul-back operation of the fishing gear to the surface. Because the time of escapement might influence the survival like-lihood it is of interest to assess whether or not there is significant differ-ence in the escapement patterns of Baltic cod from T90 codends and the other legal alternative the BACOMA codend. The study did conclude (based on the population structure available during the cruise): I) that more than 30% percent of cod escaping did so first during the haul-back


operation; II) except for a few length classes above 50 cm no significant dif-ference in the escapement likelihood is detected between the two legal codend types.

Based on the progress so far it is expected that SGTCOD will be able to fulfil most of the terms of reference to a satisfactory level.

Figure 2. Codends tested on FRV “Solea” (March 2011).

Discussion

Tow duration was about 2–2.5 hrs, in normal commercial practice usually around 5 hrs. Catch sizes were 2000 kg on average. The Selection Range (SR) needs to be looked at too, not only L50. T90 single twine 4 mm has a lower SR than the BACOMA codend. The fishing industry will be addressed in a workshop in May 2012 to learn their views, and draft a proposal for solutions. The losses shown might frighten them off. What to choose for the same breaking strength? Then thinner double twine might be the better choice. Do twine configurations maintain their shape? T90 knots might stretch deteriorating selectivity. This issue still needs to be investigated in more detail through an aging study. The question is raised whether we should use commercially fished codends instead of brand new ones. Experiments addressing this issue were planned, but not carried out yet. Scientific publications will be written on this work. Another relevant point mentioned is whether research vessels (RVs) do deliver repre-sentative data for commercial vessels (CVs).

9.2 Report from Study Group on Electrical Trawling (SGELECTRA; Bob van Marlen)

The Study Group on Electrical Trawling (SGELECTRA), chaired by Bob van Marlen, the Netherlands and Bart Verschueren, Belgium, met in Lorient, France, 21–22 April 2012 to:

a ) Improve knowledge of the effects of Electrical Fishing on the marine envi-ronment (reduction of bycatch, impact on bottom habitat, impact on ma-rine fauna, energy saving and climate related issues), in view of current technical developments on electrical fishing and emphasis on the relation-ship of pulse characteristics (power, voltage, pulse shape) and thresholds in terms of effects on fish and other organisms (mortality, injury, behav-ioural changes);


b ) Evaluate the effect of a wide introduction of electric fishing, with respect to the economic impact, the ecosystem impact, the energy consumption and the population dynamics of selected species;

c ) Consider whether limits can be set on these characteristics to avoid un-wanted effects (e.g. unwanted and uncontrolled growth on catch effi-ciency, unwanted ecosystem effects) once such systems are allowed and used at wider scale.

SGELECTRA was also asked to report by 30 June 2012 (via SSGESST) for the attention of SCICOM and ACOM.

A total of 7 participants attended from Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Scotland, and France. The meeting began with a short presentation on the history of research of pulse trawling (on flatfish), and the ICES Advice on Pulse Trawling on flatfish of 2006 and 2009. Following the ICES Advice of 2009 further studies were carried out by IMARES.

New research activities of IMARES, Ĳmuiden, The Netherlands, were presented and discussed, namely: a catch comparison in May 2011 on two pulse trawl vessels and one conventional tickler chain beam trawl boat fishing side-by-side, further analysis of spinal damage in cod (Gadus morhua L.) in 2010 and 2011, reference measurements of field strength in situ in 2011 and the result of an effect prognosis, using the model developed by Piet et al., 2009 and the data from the catch comparison.

A presentation was also given about the development of a pulse trawl (called the “Hovercran”) for the brown shrimp (Crangon crangon L.) fishery by ILVO, Ostend in Belgium, and work to be carried out by two PhD students from the University of Ghent in cooperation with ILVO. This work has been given follow-up in The Nether-lands on three commercial vessels, and a project on shrimp fishery using the “Hover-cran” in Germany on a commercial boat is about to begin.

In addition a report was given on the razor clam (Ensis) fishery in Scotland in which electrical stimulation is used. In addition a new problem was mentioned related to electrical stimuli of heavy power, i.e. the production of chlorine (it and its derivatives are toxic to marine organisms and soluble in seawater) due to electrolytic reactions.

Discussions in the Netherlands Control and Enforcement Group and draft Procedure for Control and Enforcement were presented and the draft text in English improved.

A recent report by STECF was discussed and comments given on its contents.

The reviewing experts concluded that:

• It was acknowledged that as a result of the studies for ICES more informa-tion on the effects is now available than 6 years ago, e.g. real numbers on damages in cod in the catches, also dependence of damages on size classes, the effect on sharks, and invertebrates.

• Further long-term investigations be undertaken. • The pros and cons of each system be taken into account. • The views of SGELECTRA on pulse trawling are still under development.

SGELECTRA recommended continuing to work, and to meet in autumn 2013 with Terms of Reference given in Annex 2 of their Report. The following list gives items for further work, i.e.:


• Carry out further analysis of the catch comparison data of May 2011, and prognosis of effects on major target species using the Piet et al., 2009 model.

• Investigate the effect of pulses on the electro-receptor organs of elasmo-branchs (catshark and thornback ray), and determine the catch rates of these fish in beam trawls using the Hovercran pulse.

• Report on the trials on the Hovercran developed in the Dutch fleet. • Investigate the effect of the electrical stimulation on eggs, larvae and juve-

niles of sandworm, shrimp, cod and sole, using the Hovercran and the flat-fish type of pulse.

• Carry out research on pulse suitable to generate the startle response in sole.

• Investigate aspects of control and enforcement and develop acceptable lim-its to be set in any future regulation, and consider a wider coverage in Europe, e.g. participation by UK, France, and Germany.

• Harmonize sampling and data collection methods. • Trials and data collection and analyses on the Hovercran type of Crangon

pulse gears. • Continue monitoring catches onboard commercial pulse trawl vessels in

2012. • Further consider the development of ensis fishery in the UK.

Discussion

Will effect on cod be acceptable, as this is not to be expected? Small fish are not af-fected, and the proportion affected in the catch is relatively low, and it is an ethical and ecosystem management question what to catch and what to save. Is there not a vested interest? Yes there are investments, but under derogation and we look at it objectively. It is difficult to predict whether the existing ban in the EU can be lifted. The complexity of the work and new activities that will start was noted. The SG has addressed all three ToRs, but feels that new fundamental research, e.g. by the two PhD students of the University of Ghent, Belgium will give more insight in the com-ing years. In addition there are more countries involved than a few years ago, and there are several applications, i.e. for flatfish, brown shrimps and razor clams. There-fore it is not to be expected that all questions will be answered soon. On the other hand a lot has been learned since 2006 when ICES posed its first three questions. It should also be noted that recently the EU Scientific Technical and Economic Commit-tee of Fisheries (STECF) issued a report on pulse trawling this month.


10 ToR A: Incorporation of Fishing Technology Issues/Expertise into Management Advice (Mike Pol and Dominic Rihan)

10.1 General Overview

This ToR was introduced prior to the meeting via e-mail and at plenary by the chair. The background for the ToR was re-iterated. ICES advice is increasingly holistic in nature, including information on the influence and effects of human activities on the marine ecosystem. This information should include responses and adaptations to changes in regulatory frameworks by fishers. In response to this need, WGFTFB initi-ated a ToR in 2005 to collect data and information that was appropriate to fisheries and ecosystem based advice. In 2006, the FAO-ICES WGFTFB was formally requested by the Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management (ACFM) to provide such in-formation and to submit it to the appropriate Assessment Working Group. This type of information is important at both international and national levels and demon-strates that the WG has an important role to play in this advice and that our expertise is highly valued. Since 2009 this information has been included as an Annex to sev-eral stock assessment reports e.g. WGNSSK, WGCSE and WGHMM, although the issue of the appropriate timing for the provision of this information to the assessment working groups remains unresolved.

10.2 Terms of Reference

WGFTFB should explore the means by which it can best provide appropriate infor-mation for Assessment Working Groups, ACOM and other management bodies such as GFCM in fishery and ecosystem based advice. This exploration will include the information required for fisheries based forecasts, technological creep and changes in fishing practices, implementation of regulations and other fleet adaptations, ecosys-tem effects of fishing and potential mitigation measures. The information focuses on, but is not limited to, areas for which ICES provide stock advice.

10.3 General issues

The conveners issued a questionnaire to all the WGFTFB members (see Annex 5: WGFTFB information for other ICES expert groups and questionnaire sent to WGFTFB members). The questionnaire was also available as an online form at: http://tinyurl.com/3on54sj. The questionnaire consisted of a series of questions relat-ing to recent observed changes within fleets and also highlighted gear/fleet/fishery related issues that are important but are not currently recognized by Assessment WG’s. Where possible, contributors were requested to quantify the information pro-vided or state how the information has been derived e.g. common knowledge, per-sonal observations, discussions with industry etc.

Specifically FTFB members were asked to comment under the following headings:

• Fleet Dynamics. • Technology Creep. • Technical Conservation Measures. • Ecosystem Effects. • Development of New Fisheries.

Responses to the questionnaire were received from:

http://tinyurl.com/3on54sj


• IMARES, Netherlands. • AZTI, Spain. • IMR, Norway. • BIM, Ireland. • CNR-ISMAR – Italy. • IMR, Iceland. • SUAS-IMR, Sweden.

Relevant information from the National Reports of the countries listed and also Ma-rine Scotland, UK and Ifremer, France was also included.

The information provided was collated with the responses reported below, with pre-ceding summaries. Information tailored for individual ICES Expert Groups is given in Annex 5: WGFTFB information for other ICES expert groups and questionnaire sent to WGFTFB members.

Fleet Dynamics

As in the last previous 3–4 years fuel prices were the dominant feature in all countries that affected fleet dynamics. Rising cost were manifested in multiple ways: shifts in gear, modifications to fishing practices, changes in vessel powering. Of particular note is the shift in the Netherlands away from traditional beam trawling to the use of the pulse trawl and the Sum Wing. It is now apparent that within the Netherlands, driven primarily by the cost of fuel, there is huge demand to use the pulse trawl and the number of vessels applying to fish under the 5% derogation far exceeds the num-ber of licences available. Vessels not using the pulse trawl in the Netherlands are finding it increasingly difficult to get financial support from banks on economical (high fuel prices making beam trawling uneconomic) and ecological grounds (beam trawls are portrayed negatively).

A continuing trend was seen in France and Netherlands to convert to Danish seining instead of conventional trawling or beam trawling. Some vessels have completely converted, while some have diversified and have maintained trawling to take advan-tage of both seining and trawling opportunities. At least two Dutch vessels have been converted to multi-purpose vessels with the capability of both beam trawling and twin-rigging.

In Iceland after several years of low quotas for capelin and blue whiting there has been a large increase in the quota for these species in 2011–2012 which has meant an increase in trawling and purse seining in Iceland. In the capelin fishery this has meant that vessels that were targeting pearlside (Maurolicous mulleri) have reverted back to capelin. Catches of pearlside have gone from 46,000 tonnes in 2009 to zero in 2012.

In the Mediterranean over the period 2010–2012 there have been multiple changes in fleet dynamics which have been driven by a combination of EU and national Regula-tions as well as fuel prices. Changes in the pelagic and dredge fisheries are particu-larly apparent.

Decommissioning schemes are less in evidence than in previous years although the general trend is for continuing reductions in fleet sizes. There is evidence of fleet re-newal in several countries particularly Iceland and Norway and to a lesser extent Ireland. All reported changes related to fleet dynamics are summarized below:


• Over the period 2009–2011 there have been continuing shifts in fleet dy-namics observed in the Basque fleet. Effort by this fleet (single and pair-trawlers) has been concentrated in ICES Areas VIIIa,b,d from October to February. From late March and June 50% of the single trawlers (4 of 8 boats) have moved from VIIIa,b,d to Area VI. (Spain (Basque): Implica-tions: Shifts in gears and areas).

• In the Basque pair trawl fleet targeting hake, vessels are tending to make shorter trips, due to low market price. Shorter fishing trips improved the fish freshness and quality. Also, it has been observed that vessels are coor-dinating their landing times in base ports sequentially during the week, spreading supply over the week rather than concentrating landings on Mondays and Thursdays as was traditional practice. Auctions are being held throughout the week which has the potential to raise the market price of the catch. (Spain (Basque): Implications: Shifts in fishing patterns driven by market requirements).

• There are continued indications that Spanish bottom trawlers have varied their spatial-temporal fishing strategy in order to avoid mackerel in their catches, which can be significant at times. This is because of a reduction in the Spanish mackerel quota in 2011 due to an overshoot of the quota in 2010. (Spain: Implications: Reduced bycatch of mackerel).

• As in 2010 the Basque artisanal fleet operating on tuna (trolling lines) and mackerel (handlines) all year, traditional fishing patterns were spread over 8–9 months with about 3–4 months on mackerel and 4–5 months on tuna. The rest of the year the fleet was tied-up. Reductions in the mackerel quota in 2011 has reduced the mackerel season by 1–2 month season for this spe-cies and some boats have started fishing with other gears (longlines, gill-nets) to fill out the year activity. (Spain (Basque): Implications: Shift of effort into other fisheries due to quota restrictions).

• In the period 2010–1012 about 20% (4 from 12 vessels) of the single trawl fleet and the same percentage from the Basque pairtrawler fleet have been decommissioned (1 from 4 pairs ) some of these vessels were relatively modern being around 10 years old. (Spain (Basque): Implications: Fleet re-ductions as a result of decommissioning).

• A sixty day fishing closure for Spanish trawlers operating in NW Iberian waters entered into force in 30 April 2011. This cessation of activities is in addition to the thirty day closure included under the Hake and Nephrops recovery plan. Vessels must tie-up for this 60 day period between the date of entry into force and 31 October 2011. It can be divided into 4 periods of 15 days duration each (Spain: Implications: Reduction in fishing effort by Spanish trawler fleet).

• The 5 whitefish trawlers (> 24m) based in Greencastle in the NW Ireland which traditionally have regularly shifted between fishing areas (Area VIa, VIb, VIIb-k) at short notice depending on fishing opportunities have tended to concentrate efforts on their local grounds in VIa due to the price of fuel. Two of the larger of these vessels are finding it increasingly diffi-cult to remain viable given the high operating costs. (Ireland: Implications: Shift in effort back to VIa).

• Effort levels in the Irish TR2 (Nephrops vessels) sector in the Irish Sea was exhausted in October 2011 meaning the majority of the fleet, except three vessels using sorting grids, were prevented from fishing in the Irish Sea.


Up to 16 vessels subsequently applied to fish using the sorting grid to gain some level of access to the fishery. This forced tie-up affected up to 40 Irish vessels and was particularly controversial given vessels from Northern Ire-land continued to fish unrestricted during this period. (Ireland: Implica-tions: Closure of fishery).

• With the current fuel prices, many Irish vessels have switched from target-ing megrim, monkfish and hake to Nephrops to try to reduce operating costs. Some of the larger 20m+ vessels are particularly affected and as a re-sult fishing effort in the Nephrops fisheries in the Smalls, Aran grounds, Porcupine and Labadie Bank will increase. (Ireland: Implications: Shift of effort from mixed demersal species to Nephrops)

• Five Irish whitefish vessels (24m+/700hp+) were granted an exemption from the effort regime in Area VIa (West of Scotland) in 2011. This repre-sents around 95% of the active Irish vessels in this area. This exemption was granted on the basis that these vessels did not fish in an inshore area of the Donegal coast with historically high cod catches. These vessels must use 120mm mesh size and 120mm (9–12m) square mesh panels inside a re-stricted area inside the so-called ”French Line” but can use 100mm+90mm small mesh panel (smp) outside this area. These vessels have been subject to enhanced coverage by scientific observer sampling which has shown an increase in cod catches with several trips observed to have cod catches in excess of 1.5%. This is primarily because of one vessel which has tended to fish in an area more likely to have cod bycatch. On this basis these vessels may lose their effort exemption in 2012 (Ireland: Implications: Inclusion of vessels back under the effort regime).

• Despite high fuel costs and quota and effort restrictions at least 6 modern second-hand vessels have entered the Irish fleet. The largest of these is 23m/580kw freezer vessel. All of these vessels will primarily target Neph-rops. (Ireland: Implications: Entry of modern second-hand vessels).

• Two 20m Irish vessels have been tied-up since early 2011 due to discrepan-cies between their stated and actual engine power. It is likely other Irish vessels will also be tied up due to similar anomalies between actual and reported engine power (Ireland: Implications: Tie-up of vessel

report of the ices-fao working group on fishing technology ... · light in fisheries, and any...

Documents